Indeed it does. It is also important to conduct that examination in a more than superficial manner. This is a much more meaningful link. "Vladimir M. Kotlyakov is world-leading specialist in the field of geography and glaciology." http://igras.ru/en/staff/28

gla·ci·ol·o·gy (glsh-l-j, -s-)
n.
The scientific study of glaciers and their effects on the landscape.
[glaci(er) + -logy.]

Does studying the effects of glaciers on the landscape qualify one on matters of paleoclimatology? I suppose it could...

mrgybe wrote:

feuser wrote:

Each side asserts the other is biased through the sources of their funding.

Where has Vladimir done that? He appears to be a serious and accomplished scientist.

Selective quoting at work. I stated my observation about the camps of scientists - geologists (not geographers) and climatologists and, by extension, their supporters, not Comrade Vladimir's opinions.

mrgybe wrote:

feuser wrote:

Doubt is a philosophical concept, and, while your philosophy is entirely your own prerogative, your actions and support for collective solutions to problems affecting us all, are not.

Nonsense. Any of us are free to object to, and act against so called "collective solutions" foisted on us by ignorant, self serving politicians.

Yes, you're free to doubt and object to anything you want. You can doubt the earth is round and man has walked on the moon. You can't doubt the speed limit on US Highways (at least I dare you to) - a collective solution to the problem of pollution, fuel consumption and traffic deaths. Living in society does involve accepting the premises that guide our laws. Quite the opposite of being "ignorant and self-serving"._________________florian - ny22

Yes, you're free to doubt and object to anything you want. You can doubt the earth is round and man has walked on the moon. You can't doubt the speed limit on US Highways (at least I dare you to) - a collective solution to the problem of pollution, fuel consumption and traffic deaths. Living in society does involve accepting the premises that guide our laws. Quite the opposite of being "ignorant and self-serving".

You mean, for example, like the premise that guided the laws prohibiting women and blacks from voting? The opposite of ignorant and self serving? How about the regulations requiring ethanol to be added to gasoline? There are countless other examples and, in my opinion, many steps taken by governments around the world to "combat global warming" are included in those ignorant and self serving actions. Some may choose to meekly sit back and accept the premise that these are wise steps taken by officials only interested in the public good which we should not have the temerity to question. I do not choose to do so and I routinely voice my objections to those elected to represent me in Congress when they take actions I regard to be grounded in ignorance or to be self serving.

You mean, for example, like the premise that guided the laws prohibiting women and blacks from voting? The opposite of ignorant and self serving?

Funny - I was going to mention as an example for a commonly accepted premise of a law the equality of women and minorities... Only, I did not want to be uncivil and suggest racism or misogyny.

mrgybe wrote:

How about the regulations requiring ethanol to be added to gasoline? There are countless other examples and, in my opinion, many steps taken by governments around the world to "combat global warming" are included in those ignorant and self serving actions. Some may choose to meekly sit back and accept the premise that these are wise steps taken by officials only interested in the public good which we should not have the temerity to question. I do not choose to do so and I routinely voice my objections to those elected to represent me in Congress when they take actions I regard to be grounded in ignorance or to be self serving.

Please do not list measures like the Ethanol subsidy - I believe an overwhelming majority would agree here. The status quo is based on accepting the premise that the release of carbon that was fossilized over millions of years in only a few decades is not harming the planet.

Whatever your opinion, asking for scientific proof for that premise should not be a politically contentious issue?_________________florian - ny22

I'm sure you understand that laws and regulations which were at one time acceptable to the majority, but now seem ridiculous, were only overturned when enough people did not accept the underlying premise......equal rights and ethanol use being two examples. Without challenge, those in power will run roughshod over us. We should always be questioning the status quo, or matters that are deemed "settled". That, I believe, is GT's point. Incidentally, consensus on global warming, even if it exists, is not proof.

I'm sure you understand that laws and regulations which were at one time acceptable to the majority, but now seem ridiculous, were only overturned when enough people did not accept the underlying premise......equal rights and ethanol use being two examples. Without challenge, those in power will run roughshod over us. We should always be questioning the status quo, or matters that are deemed "settled". That, I believe, is GT's point. Incidentally, consensus on global warming, even if it exists, is not proof.

Scientific consensus is based on rational thought and scientific proof (not empirical, retrospective proof - we'll have to wait a few hundred years before we have that).

It's a stretch to like the interests of the carbon industry and their consumers to suppressed minorities. The fact remains that maintaining the current status quo DOES run roughshod over the interests of future generations._________________florian - ny22

Feuser. (Hi.).... We all like to believe we are logical and unswayed by emotion in accepting or rejecting theories.

I didn't check out Kotlyakov beyond the obvious fact that he is a reputable academic at a prestigious Science Academy, and should therefore be taken seriously. His exact qualifications seemed secondary to what he was saying. (Surely, nobody really believes any longer a persons vision and inspiration is governed solely by their paper qualifications.)

On reading his statement, and we await full disclosure and clarification, there seem to be far fewer contradictions than in present global warming theory. The stumbling block appears to be the magnitude of reduced solar output necessary for the predicted results; much in excess of present accepted research figures. Presumably they have research to back this up, and we await with interest, full presentation.

This theory, with its apparent simplicity, certainly struck a chord with me on first reading in a way which current global warming (not climate change) seeming contradictions have never done.

Thanks GT. I agree that he seems to have the chops, and I also agree that geographers and glaciologists have a role in the debate (but perhaps not tobacco "scientists" now working under oil company funding.) In fact, coring of ice has been one of the means to recreate time-series of CO2 levels that go back before reliable temperature records. It is of course deeply ironic that the deniers disparaged the use of geological records when they thought they showed warming trends. Let's see what he actually said in the study, and how peer review responds. It is indeed a scientist's role to suggest different ways of interpreting the existing data and see what his/her peers think.

But the real reason for commenting is to rebut the revisionist history attempts by mrgybe on ethanol. As a purveyor of atmospheric poisons that have carcinogenic properties, he is understandably defensive and irrational about his products, but it appears to have affected his memory as well as his reasoning. There are public health reasons that MTB and subsequently ethanol were added to gasoline--they are oxygenates. Such oxygenates have a small effect on reducing gasoline consumption, but a very major impact on the carcinogenic properties of gasoline vapors. Before oxygenates were mandated, benzene from crankcase emissions were a very significant public health hazard. I can dig up the old California Air Resources Board numbers from their health risk assessment if anyone really cares.

Mrgybe's industry, of course, objected to oxygenates as unnecessary regulation. Legislative representatives of corn-producing states, most of them if memory serves me well, Republicans, went further to mandate broader use of ethanol. From an overall energy perspective it was not a good idea, and it is one of the unattractive aspects of our political system where I often share the concerns of conservatives. But the story started with public health--and oil company opposition.

Rather interesting to look at the last 3 paragraphs of Kotlyakov's work in the citation by Feuser. There is also a little more detail on methodology--he is looking at the movement of glaciers in parts of the former Soviet Union that I'm certainly not aware of. Here's what he says:

I

Quote:

propose the establishment of a system of regular monitoring of changes to sizes and forms of surging glaciers and of their dynamic behaviour through ground, aerial and space observations.3 Ground observations include setting up regular photogeodetic measurements of glacier fluctuations, permanent glacial-meteorological stations, and conducting field studies. Aerial observations include regular aero-visual monitoring and periodic distant aerophotogrammetric surveys. Space observations include continual satellite photography, with a resolution of 15 m to 20 m. Currently, such information is available from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER), a cooperative effort between NASA and Japan, flying on the Terra satellite; from Landsat 7; as well as from the Russian section of the International Space Station, where cosmonauts photograph glaciers.

During global warming, solutions to surging glaciers and their unpredictable behaviour are still far from being found and demands an organized national and international research.

It should be emphasized that the problem of climate change is extremely difficult to understand, and it has still not been possible to know what factors in the past decades—natural or anthropogenic—have caused the warming. There are still many uncertainties in solving this problem. IPCC estimates are rather wide in their range of accuracy and, therefore, cannot predict with confidence the emergence of an ice age on Earth—at least not in the coming decades and centuries.

So, implicit here is warming, and a need for more accurate research and monitoring to try to distinguish trends from noise. Hard to disagree with that.

There are public health reasons that MTB and subsequently ethanol were added to gasoline--they are oxygenates. Such oxygenates have a small effect on reducing gasoline consumption, but a very major impact on the carcinogenic properties of gasoline vapors. Mrgybe's industry, of course, objected to oxygenates as unnecessary regulation.

It's MTBE not MTB..........a surprising mistake for an expert. However, it's true, the oil industry did object to the addition of MTBE to gasoline. Pity the regulators didn't listen. MTBE has turned out to be a significant contaminant of drinking water. Exxon just lost a law suit in New Hampshire for adding MTBE to gasoline and contaminating the state’s drinking water. Required to do it despite their objections..........and now sued for doing it. As for ethanol......again mandated over industry objections.......it's surprising that our Berkeley poster would tout the merits of those mandates in view of the clear inefficiency of ethanol and the growing evidence of significant pollution resulting from it's use including possible negative consequences to the climate.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum